Letters to the Editor
-
Why does it matter?
Why Does It Matter That Hillary Voted For The War in 2002?
So did the majority of Democrats in the Senate. Only 21 voted against, and they were all given inaccurate information.
Because in 2002 Obama said he:
1. "...[ was]opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."
2. "...[knew] that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
3. "...[knew] that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences...that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
As far as I am concerned he was right on all three points. So he was able to analyze the situation in spite of the propaganda that was being thrown out by the administration. (I was saying the same things myself at the time, even though I do not have any security clearance and get my current affairs information from Internet sources only.)
Hillary, on the other hand, even though she is the wife of a former President, and surely must have had access to all the best informatiith the sheep, but she showed that she was a follower not a leader.
Perhaps, as some people think, she voted against her own inclination, because she thought a vote against the war would be unpopular. Well, I can't see Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel being so wimpy, and if this is the correct explanation, then it hardly recommends her as qualified to be the leader of the free world.
That is all.
-
Why it matters...
Why Does It Matter That Hillary Voted For The War in 2002?
So did the majority of Democrats in the Senate. Only 21 voted against, and they were all given inaccurate information.
Because in 2002 Obama said he:
1. "...[ was]opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression."
2. "...[knew] that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."
3. "...[knew] that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences...that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda."
As far as I am concerned he was right on all three points. So he was able to analyze the situation in spite of the propaganda that was being thrown out by the administration. (I was saying the same things myself at the time, even though I do not have any security clearance and get my current affairs information from Internet sources only.)
Hillary, on the other hand, even though she is the wife of a former President, and surely must have had access to all the best information, chose to be duped by Bush's team of professional liars, or was not truly capable of understanding what was going on.
In any case, she had an opportunity to provide leadership and not to go along with the sheep, but she showed that she was a follower not a leader.
Perhaps, as some people think, she voted against her own inclination, because she thought a vote against the war would be unpopular. Well, I can't see Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel being so wimpy, and if this is the correct explanation, then it hardly recommends her as qualified to be the leader of the free world.
That is all.
As far as abortion goes, like everyone else, I don't relish the idea of a lot of abortions, and if Obama is agreeable to a certain amount of abortion in the absence of viable alternatives--which it seems that he is--then that is good enough for me.
Nit-picking over abortion votes is hardly as important as picking a competent Commander-in-Chief who understands what is going on in the world outside our borders.
-
parental consent
I would be interested to hear the argument for the stance that "even parental consent with judicial bypass is unacceptable." My child is a boy, but if he were a girl, I'd want to be in the loop if she got pregnant at, say, 14. I understand about abusive parents but thought that's what the judicial bypass was for.
-
A "Present" vote would have been nice...
... from Sen. Clinton for H.J. Res. 114, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
-
Why not?
But questioning Obama's fundamental commitment to women's rights (when he had the approval to begin with from NOW) during a fierce campaign like this--just strikes me as striking below the belt. And not a great moment for women.
Why sould not we question a candidate's commitment to anything, inluding women's right? I don't care about kosher feminism, non-kosher humanism, approvals from NOW, Ophra, or Santa, or the sensitivity of anybody's under-belt regions.
Please help me find 'Reproductive Issues,' or 'Women's Rights' among under the 'Issues' on Obama's web site. I would love to see any proof of his commitment to either.